[1]
ABSTRACT

Paradigmatic shifts in the panorama of past scientific revolutions have both expanded the domain of science and forced major shifts in man's view of himself. They have affected both his view of his place in both the world, and his spiritual life. These revolutions are reviewed for commonality and to assess their impacts on science and society. This review enables us to see that changing the metaphysical basis of science from the primacy of materiality to that of consciousness is a natural next advance that follows a pattern of past paradigm shifts. This change allows expansion of the realm of physical science from relationships among inert material objects into the life science region, as well as into the realm of spirituality. This revolution differs, however, from the previous ones. The difference is that for completion it requires change not only in mental concepts, as required in earlier ones, but also change in the psyche of man -- to the transpersonal. The new science can proceed, however, only with an intellectual acceptance of its premises, providing time for more complete acceptance to develop.

[2]
The term paradigm was originated by Leibniz and popularized by Thomas Kuhn (1962). A paradigm is a fixed conceptual framework that most scientists accept and work within, which then becomes a filter for seeing, interpreting, and correlating experience. According to Kuhn, "normal" science consists of work within this paradigm. History shows, however, that anomalous phenomena arise that defy explanation within the current paradigm. For a while these misfits can be "swept under the rug" by considering the offending experiential data to be nonfactual and unreal, but the accumulation of paradoxes and/or anomalies builds pressure for finding an alternative paradigm that will encompass not only all of the older, "explained phenomena", but also include the newer, anomalous phenomenon. Although Kuhn dealt with scientific revolutions, the impact of those revolutions on human culture was also revolutionary, as to be expected since fundamental physical and metaphysical concepts have been involved. The current paradigm for science has two main tenets. The first is that the material world is the primary reality and all else is either derived from that or illusionary. The second tenet is that the process of observation does not influence the observed. The first tenet relegates consciousness to be an epiphenomenon of materiality, e.g. it is an outcome of brain tissue. This nearly 400 year old paradigm became an unquestioned belief system that was strongly entrenched by the Copernican revolution.

[3]
The first paradigm shift was from the idea of a flat earth. When this was replaced with a round earth men's horizons were enlarged, and exploration of the earth's geography rapidly developed. The effect of this paradigm change on science was to extend the domain of mathematical geometry to spheres. We then look at the Copernican revolution, which had a profound effect on the future conduct of science, and proceed to the advent of quantum mechanics (QM) in 1928. Then comes the Science Within Consciousness described by Amit Goswami at this conference. We hope to see thereby what is historically common among the numerous scientific revolutions, and be able to credibly extrapolate beyond the current scientific paradigm into the future.


[4]
THE COPERNICAN REVOLUTION

The Copernican Revolution required a wrenching conceptual change from a geocentric, to a heliocentric universe, and was mightily resisted by the church authorities of the day. Galileo, who taught the ideas of Copernicus, was convicted of a "vicious suspicion of heresy" in 1633, and confined by house arrest for the final years of his life. This conflict between the church's hubris and Galileo's arrogance ultimately led to science strictly confining its activities thereafter to the material world, leaving spiritual, and subjective matters to the church. This division continues to this day, but with scientists now rejecting subjectivity data as valid, as opposed to its original goal of search for truth wherever is found -- and with the church having no scientific method to investigate spirituality. As science proved the church dogma wrong in so many material matters, the church lost credence in the western world, even in its legitimate, subjective domain. Then as science gained dominance it developed its own hubris, claiming that science was the only valid source of truth -- the current virulent social disease called "scientism". As psychologist Abraham Maslow put it (1969), as a result we now have a half-religion, and a half-science. The impact of the Copernican revolution on human culture was quite significant. Man, from living at the center of the universe, was demoted to being on one of several planets subservient to the sun, and the church was shown to be fallible. Also again shown to be fallible was the evidence of our senses, e.g., the sun no longer traverses the sky daily from east to west.

[5]
THE NEWTONIAN REVOLUTION

Then Isaac Newton reduced the mysterious planetary motions to the mathematically rational result of gravitational attraction between inertial masses. More generally, however, he established the concept that the operation of the universe was subservient to a set of laws, which when applied using reason, predicted the future positions of objects from knowledge of their initial positions and momentums. The mysterious universe ruled by God was now replaced by a universe that ran like clockwork, requiring from God only a source of initial energy to start it going. God was now unneeded in the affairs of man, and writers on sociology, psychology, and related fields (e.g., Appleyard 1993) have blamed Newtonian science for the de-spiritualization and resulting inhumanity of man to man in the modern age. There is validity to this accusation, and a philosophical movement to discredit science in these times has developed, presumably for that reason. With Newton's physics we had a general method not only for deriving planetary orbits, but for predicting the motions of any mechanical system. The Newtonian revolution extended the domain of science beyond merely planetary orbits, to any mechanical system, in any portion of the universe. It also demoted man from his honored place at the center of the universe, and eliminated both mystery in the operation of the universe, and the corresponding need for God. The Newtonian science also required the (then) new mathematics of calculus in order to be expressed.

[6]
THE EINSTEINIAN REVOLUTION

Next, in 1905, came Albert Einstein's relativity theory. His theory differed from Newton's when there was relative motion between the observer and the observed. The formerly constant parameters of mass, distance, and time changed therein by an amount depending on the ratio of the relative velocities to that of light. Again man's common sense and the evidence of his senses were drastically violated, to be replaced by the uncommon sense of science. Einstein's predictions that light paths would be bent when near a large mass, and that mass and energy were interchangeable were inconceivable and incredible to scientists and layman of that day. It took measurements during an ellipse of the sun of the apparent position of a star whose light passed close to the sun to provide conclusive and coercive proof of the correctness of Einstein's new concepts. The measured shift in position of the star's image was about the amount Einstein predicted! If Einstein was correct, as had now to be accepted, then the other consequences of the theory had also to be accepted. The bombing of Nagasaki in World War II dramatically demonstrated to the world another of his conclusions -- the equivalence of mass and energy.

[7]
According to Einstein, when a mass travels with a high relative velocity, its mass increases, and distance and time also changed. According to both Newton and daily experience these factors were always invariable, so why had these odd effect never been noticed before? To answer that we must look at the magnitude of these changes. We shall look at mass only, as distance and time increase or decrease by the same factor. According to Einstein's theory a mass increases in mass value, when traveling at a high velocity (as observed from a stationary platform). This increase depends upon the ratio of it's velocity to the velocity of light. For a stationary mass, the increase is zero. At the speed required for a space ship to leave the earth's orbit of about 7 miles per second, the mass or weight of the space ship calculates, per Einstein, to be increased by only six parts in one thousand million. So NASA relies for its space orbit calculations much more on Newton than on Einstein. The principal effect of Einstein's modification of Newton's equations was to extend the applicability of Newton's equations into the domain of higher velocities -- those comparable with the speed of light, where Newton could not go. Newton's mechanics is thus a "limiting case" of relativity theory -- in the limit of zero relative velocity Einstein and Newton's theories are identical. Also, we note that ,as with previous paradigm change, Einstein's general relativity theory required a new geometry (Riemann's), in order to be expressed.


[8]
THE REVOLUTION OF QUANTUM MECHANICS

Next came the revolution caused by quantum mechanics. The word 'quantum' comes from the discovered fact that many physical quantities are not infinitely divisible, as previously believed, but are quantized -- provided only in minute "packets" called quanta. Max Plank found this concept necessary to explain anomalous spectral phenomena in the emission of light, and Einstein used it to explain spectral anomalies in photoelectric emission. The success in these fields led in 1928 to the mathematical theory called quantum mechanics, which applies to elementary particles where Newton's theory no longer works. It is important to recognize that in every application of QM in the nearly seven decades of it existence, it has given correct answers. Since it works so well, it must speak truth -- at least a partial truth. Quantum mechanics is a difficult theory to accept as its consequences are extremely counter-intuitive (i.e. weird!). For example, sufficiently small particles can be either a wave or a particle, depending on the experimenter's decision of which to look for. Also, matter is conceptualized in QM as waves of probability and becomes manifest in our space-time world only when an observation is made by a sentient being. It is important, however, to note that QM approaches identity to Newton's theory for objects composed of many atomic particles -- objects we can readily see.

[9]
Let's take a small object such as an atom to show how this seamless merging comes about, in a analogous manner to how Einstein's physics merges into Newton's for objects moving slowly. All objects are composed of quanta of matter or energy, and thus are subject to the rules of QM. Does this mean that each particle of an object could be anywhere in the universe when unobserved? The answer is a resounding no! What happens instead is that the "quantum waves" representing each of the particles superimpose and interact, similar to the way water waves cancel and reinforce each other. In this case, they combine so that the high-probability envelope for the object's location becomes identical to that foretold by Newton. The larger an object, the more closely does it act as Newton says it should. So there is no significant difference between the predictions of the new and old physics, when applied to objects made of many atoms, -- those that the naked eye can readily see. QM merges into Newton as object sizes increase from atomic dimensions. As before the new does not invalidate the old in the domain for which it was developed. Also as before, QM required a new use of the mathematics of probability theory in order to be expressed. The metaphysical implications of QM are a drastic change, relative to Newton's mechanics. The regular and predicable universe of Newton was replaced by a world with uncertainty at its core, and the observer is intimately involved in what is observed. The effect on science is that, although Newton's laws work fine for prediction of events that humans deal with daily life, it goes badly awry at the sub-atomic level, and QM must then be used.

[10]
SCIENCE WITHIN CONSCIOUSNESS

We pass to the Science Within Consciousness concepts of Prof. Amit Goswami, as reported in this conference. Goswami was the first to introduce the primacy of consciousness into science, and to fully develop the details of the result. His new concepts were a rejuvenation of rejected ideas of the genius mathematician John von Neumann (1955). Goswami first published his new ideas in a physics journal (1989) and later for the layperson in his book (1993), wherein he formulated what he now calls Science Within Consciousness, (or SWC). He has described applications of the new science in academic journals in psychology and biology (see references), and in the Internet home page at www.swcp.com/swc. The recognition of the primacy of consciousness and it's significance to science appears to be growing. This is demonstrated by both the naming of this conference, and by the recent publication of E. R. Close's 1997 book, Transcendental Physics. If QM was considered to be difficult to accept, then SWC follows the historical pattern of increasing counter-intuitiveness of new paradigms. Its basic premise is that of the Perennial Philosophy, as described in Aldous Huxley's 1958 book of that name. This is that consciousness is the ground of all being. Consciousness thus is the source for everything in the universe, both seen and unseen, material and immaterial. Consciousness can neither be sensed, defined, nor described; it just is. Consciousness is the primary reality, there is only one consciousness, and the material universe arises out of it as an epiphenomenon, as will be shown later. Quantum mechanics (QM) is a mathematical procedure that defines the possibilities inherent in a particular physical situation.

[11]
Goswami introduced consciousness into physics via QM, by assuming that it is the agent for the materialization of matter from the potential state. We shall use the simplest possible example of a physical situation in order to illustrate the meaning of this statement (See Figure 1). Let's inject a small object such as an atom into an empty space. The mathematics of QM precisely defines its location following the injection, but only in terms of possibilities -- with each possible location having a particular probability of the atom being found there. For instance, at point A the probability might be 2%, at B 3.4%, at C 13.%, and so on, throughout the whole of space. When a measurement or observation of the object's location is made something magical happens. The physicist calls this magical moment 'waveform collapse' because it is the quantum waveform that mathematically defines the probabilities, but we will simply call it 'quantum' collapse. When quantum collapse happens, the atom is manifested into our space-time world at one particular location out of the infinitely manifold set of prior possibilities. The cloud of uncertainty has now 'collapsed' -- into a certainty. Whereas the atom formerly could have been located at A, B, C, or anywhere else, after 'quantum collapse' it then is somewhere -- at a definite location. The conventional, academic physicist will agree with this so far, but we now go further. A different but equivalent way of looking at this is that before quantum collapse the electron was actually nowhere in this space-time world of ours. It then had a tendency to exist somewhere -- but did not actually exist anywhere. After quantum collapse, however, it actually did exist.

[12]
To the question, "Where was the electron before quantum collapse?", QM provides no answer. We did know the electron's location when we wrote the quantum equation and injected the electron into space. It did exist in space-time then, but it did not exist subsequently until a measurement (observation) was made of its location. So quantum collapse is the basic act of creation, and consciousness is the agent thereof. Since the electron before its "creation" via observation was not in our space-time world, it must therefore have been in a transcendental region -- by the definition of the word transcendental. It thus seems clear that QM, per the SWC interpretation, provides us with an insight link between the transcendental and the material world. Furthermore, since the transcendental is not cognizable, the fact that QM was a creation of that limited mind of man indicates that intuitive inspiration must come into our consciousness from the transcendental, rather than from brain function. Since the Universe is a large assembly of small particles such as atoms, and QM applies to each of them, this then is the scientist's story of the creation of the universe. If we equate the word God to consciousness (as seems reasonable to do), then this story from science story agrees with that in the Christian Bible. The universe instead of being created in six days, however, is created each observing moment of our lives, with both God and us needed. Since both God and us (or some other aware entity) are co-creators of the world, is that not what is meant in the Bible's statement that God made man in his image?

[13]
Science Within Consciousness (or SWC) has been marvelously successful in providing explanations for anomalous phenomena. A semi-annual bulletin is published describing some of these successes, such as in bridging the gap between science and religion, in parapsychology, the relation of East/West healing systems, death and reincarnation, etc. These are all fields of experience that are unexplainable by current materialistic science. The introduction of consciousness into QM as an essential element has spiritualized science, enabling it to no longer be limited to phenomena of the material world of inert matter. It now provides guidance in fields of the life sciences as well as in the spiritual realm (see the SWC Internet home page for details). This explanatory power for anomalous phenomena has historically been a potent argument for the acceptance of a new paradigm in science. But acceptance has been slow in coming in this instance, due to its conceptual assumption involving consciousness. Science, after being burned by Galileo' s treatment, has striven for nearly 400 years to confine its activities to the objective and material world. Consequently, allowing consciousness into science is considered to be heretic. It is ironic that whereas the religious establishment was the resistance to the "heretic" emergence of science, it now is the scientific establishment that defines as heretical that which has the power to unite science and spirituality. Fortunately our psychologists freer to accept the primacy of consciousness.


[14]
CONCLUSIONS, FOR CONSIDERATION:

1) THE OLD MATERIALISTIC PHYSICS IS DEAD. IT OFFERS ONLY DERISION FOR PROVEN AREAS OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE IT CANNOT EXPLAIN.

Examples are parapsychological phenomena, east/west healing systems, spontaneous evolution, life/death and reincarnation, and consciousness itself.

[15]
2) THE PRIMACY OF CONSCIOUSNESS CONCEPT FOLLOWS THE PATTERN OF ALL PAST REVOLUTIONS, e.g.,

a) Each explains older phenomena, and also explains phenomena anomalous to the old science.

b) the principal basis of each moves from the physical to the metaphysical.

c) each utilizes new concepts that become increasingly more counter-intuitive.

d) the expression of each new theory required a new mathematics.

[16]
3) EACH SHIFT EXPANDED THE PURVIEW OF "HARD" SCIENCE. (WITHOUT INVALIDATING THE FORMER), e.g.,

a) spherical vs flat earth expanded geometry from planar to spherical ( but we still use plane geometry for surveying).

b) Newton expanded science from merely planetary motion to motion anywhere of anything. (but epicycles still explain planetary motion).

c) Einstein extended physics to the very fast (but NASA still uses Newton for space navigation).

d) quantum mechanics extended physics to the very tiny (but it approaches identity to Newton as mass increases from atomic dimensions).

e) SWC expands science into the life sciences and spirituality (but with no change in the old physics of the material world).

Comment: The old science replaced, but was never invalidated by the new in man's normal experience. The eminent transpersonal psychologist Ken Wilber has expressed a destructive misunderstanding of science when he wrote (1984) that we cannot tie our spiritual understanding to science because it is always changing. He sarcastically asked, "would Buddha then lose his enlightenment?" He was wrong, as has been shown herein, and erred because he did not anticipate the advent of the new paradigm for science.

[17]
4) ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRIMACY OF CONSCIOUSNESS FACES EGO RESISTANCE.

a) If materiality is a secondary reality, our material bodies are not as "real" as we thought -- An ego threat!

b) If Consciousness is making all choices in the universe, as per SWC, then what place for the ego? Free will is then only an illusion. Ego on red alert!

c) A revolution is required not only in concepts, but also in the psyche, -- toward spiritual awakening, i.e., follow the difficult Zen path of "In the beginning the rivers and mountains are real; Later they are not real; At the end they are again real" (but cognized as appearances in consciousness)

d) the new revolution can proceed with only general intellectual acceptance based on its utility and consensual pressure, allowing time for deeper psychic acceptance.

[18]
5) SCIENCE WITHIN CONSCIOUSNESS, BASED ON PRIMACY OF CONSCIOUSNESS, SUPPORTS A UNIVERSAL RELIGION BASED ON SCIENTIFIC REASON RATHER THEN BLIND FAITH. SUCH A NEW RELIGION COULD INSPIRE A SECOND RENAISSANCE, FREEING THE WORLD FROM ITS CURRENT SPIRITUAL DARK AGE.

[19]
METAPHORIC SUMMARY


The course of science since its beginning can be compared with that of a river, thereby providing a metaphoric summary of the course of science. This description is adapted from the 1997 book by E. R. Close (1997). If we compare the course of science with a river, it appears as a surging stream of thought, flowing from the great minds of the past toward the oceanic goals of universal knowledge and understanding. The turbulence of its escape from the valley of religious dogma nearly forgotten, it flows fairly smoothly out of the last century, only to be churned into foaming rapids at the conjunction of the two powerful tributaries, relativity and quantum mechanics. Downstream we hear a deafening roar, and billowing mists warn of a great precipice, an impending plunge over a great waterfall. The impetus of the two great tributaries drives us inexorably toward the frightful, yawning brink. Some of us, seeing only the chaos and confusion, fear for our carefully constructed theories. Others among us seeing the great beauty in the wild scene, are too stunned to be concerned about the coming turmoil, too much in awe of the power of the new ideas. A closer look at the boat in which we scientists are traveling tells us that the creaking hull of the current paradigm probably will not survive the pounding of the rapids leading to the falls. A great crack is opening even now and the swirling waters of new concepts are engulfing us. But downstream, below the falls, we can see a glistening rainbow arching over the mists above an even more powerful river that flows on, toward the tranquil Sea Of Enlightenment.

[20]
Final Note:

This paper is scheduled for presentation at the end of April 1998 at a conference in Lisbon on 'Science and Primacy of Consciousness'. The author would appreciate comment on any or all of the contents. Although he was trained and worked as a physicist he has been retired for 23 years, and thus does not consider himself to be expert in any of the several disciplines contained in this paper, and would appreciate learning of his errors.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REFERENCES

1) Appleyard, Brian (1993),Understanding the Present, or Science and The Soul of Modern Man. (Anchor Books).

2) Close, Edward R. (1997), Transcendental Physics, Paradigm Press, P.O. Box 376, Jackson, Mo 63755, or paradigmpress@mailexcite.com.

3) Goswami, Amit (1989), 'The Idealistic Interpretation of Quantum Physics, Physics Essays, volume 2. number 4, 1989.

4) Goswamis, Amit(1990) 'Consciousness in Quantum Mechanics and the Mind-Body Problem, J. of Mind and Behavior, 11, 75, Winter

5) Goswami, Amit, with M. Mitchell (1992), Quantum Mechanics For Observer Systems, Physics Essays, 5, pages 525-529.

6) Goswami, Amit (1963), The Self Aware Universe; How Consciousness Creates the Material World, ( NY, Jeremy Tarcher/Putnam)

7) Goswami, Amit (1994a), Science Within Consciousness: Developing a Science Based on the Primacy of Consciousness; Research Report CP-7, Institute of Noetic Science,

8) Goswami, Amit (1994b), Consciousness and Biological Order: Toward A Quantum Theory of Life and Its Evolution (U. of Oregon preprint).

9) Goswami, Amit, with Dennis Todd (1994c), Consciousness and Biological Order Toward a Quantum Theory and Epigenetic Mechanisms in Evolution (U. of Oregon preprint).

10) Huxley, Aldous (1958). The Perennial Philosophy.

11) Maslow, Abraham (1969), The Psychology of Science, (Gateway Edition, Henry Regnery Co.).

12) Nasr, Seyyed Hossein (1993), The Need For a Sacred Science, (SUNY Press).

13) Neumann, J. von (1955), The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Physics, (Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ),Chap. VII.

14) SWC Internet Home Page at www.swcp.com/swc.

15) Wilber, Ken (1984), Quantum Questions, (Shambala Press).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biographical

Data. Henry Swift obtained the PhD degree in experimental physics from the University of Iowa in 1943 and worked on military research and development during his 31 year career. Since retiring 23 years ago he has traveled, studied eastern religions and philosophy, etc. He edits and publishes a semi-annual bulletin for Science Within Consciousness, which can be accessed at http://swcp.com/swc. This is a new science based on the primacy of consciousness, rather than materiality, the brainchild of Prof. Amit Goswami of the theoretical physics division of the University of Oregon.

E-mail <hswift@swcp.com>